BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

[Eireann]

Originally posted by cirisme
I find it interesting that you switch from "morals" to "ethics." For the record, I believe that ethics are man-made, and are relative morals that man adhears to.

Actually, they are exactly the opposite. If there is anything that is absolute in this area, it is ethics. Sit in on any basic philosophy class and they will explain the difference. It is one of the first things they teach.

Morals deal with acts and behaviors, societal norms
Ethics deal with motives and internal causes, feeings, right/wrong

There is no actual or behavioral difference between killing and murder. The difference is in motive. But both combatants insist on using murder as a standard for morality, so I'm using their examples. If they were both using academic definitions of morality, then murder would be a moot point, since murder is not a moral issue, but an ethical issue. The moral issue would be the normality or lawfulness of killing.

 

[Eireann]

There was a famous person whose name eludes me for the moment who made the famous statement, "You can't legislate morality." (I believe it was one of the Roosevelt's, but I'm not sure). The first day I walked into my Approaches to Ethics class three semesters ago, that statement was written across the chalkboard to illustrate how poorly people understand the academic definitions of morality and ethics. The professor's point was that morality is precisely the one thing that can be and is legislated. Ethics is what cannot be legislated, because you cannot establish laws that dictate how someone will think and feel. They may shape those things, but they cannot dictate them. One cannot legislate motive. One can only establish laws to regulate the outward expression of thoughts and feelings inasmuch as they are informed by ethics (in other words, we can only regulate behavior). Laws are morals (though not all morals are laws).

 

[webby]

FOR THE RECORD

FOR THE RECORD

I force added a vote for Zakath so that Eireann's vote could be properly counted.

 

[Eireann]

Re: FOR THE RECORD

Re: FOR THE RECORD

Originally posted by webmaster
I force added a vote for Zakath so that Eireann's vote could be properly counted.

Thank you. And, by the way, I didn't directly accuse anyone of fixing the vote. I just wanted an answer to the question, and nobody would address it before. I figured that challenge would get someone's attention.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by cirisme


Which is more correct, Zakath's opinion, or society's? Furthermore, should law be based on Zakath's expiriences or the societies? Also, what if Zakath disagrees with the society? What relatisim comes down to is the one with the bigger stick.

Whose opinion is stronger or more right is irrelevent and has no bearing on whether moral absolutes exist. Morals are behavioral guidelines by which members of the society are expected to abide. Not every member of society is going to agree with them, but they had better behave according to the morals (rules) if they want to avoid social sanctions of one sort or another. Personally, I don't believe there is anything wrong with public nudity, but I also fully expect to get arrested if I walked around naked in public. My opinion differs from that of society, but my behavior (which is what the morals guide) is according to the established morals of this society, not according to my opinions.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by cirisme
I believe in both moral relativism and absolutism. So your arguement doesn't fly

It does fly. I would wager that most everyone believes in the existence of relative morals. The debate isn't about whether relative morals exist, because they clearly do, and most everyone is in agreement on that. It is about whether or not absolute morals exist. And your position is that they do, thus your combatant, the one whose position you agree with, is Knight. Knight has never contended that relative morals don't exist.

 

[webby]

Re: Re: FOR THE RECORD

Re: Re: FOR THE RECORD

Originally posted by Eireann

Thank you. And, by the way, I didn't directly accuse anyone of fixing the vote. I just wanted an answer to the question, and nobody would address it before. I figured that challenge would get someone's attention.

I didn't see your question originally.

If you ever have any trouble on the forum please e-mail or private message I or Knight. Thanks!

 

[LordBinkus]

Knight has not made his case

Knight has not made his case

In the Bible, the Christian god's chosen people kidnap, rape and murder under his command. Is that "absolutely" wrong or "absolutely" right? According to who? It is all so confusing...

Jesus supposedly was kidnapped, tortured and killed for the greater good of humanity. So I guess kidnapping, torturing and killing is not absolutely wrong but can be moral goodness in the highest form--under certain circumstances. Knight certainly believes that this example of kidnap, torture and murder/killing was moral goodness in its highest form. Therefore Knight is not "absolutely" against kidnapping, torturing and killing others. Under the right circumstances he thinks such actions are morally right, and is therefore a moral relativist.

Of course, Knight has not shown that there is a moral standard above and beyond that of humanity, which is essentially how he defined "absolute morality" at the beginning of the debate. He has just asserted that such a thing exists, but has never supported this claim. And while he and I and Zak may all agree that in specific cases kidnap, torture and murder are wrong, other people, such as fanatically religious terrorists, might believe that in specific cases such things are NOT morally wrong. On September 11, 2001, religious fanatics kidnapped, tortured and killed thousands of Americans. They did this believing that their actions were wonderful examples of moral goodness that all Muslims should follow. So within the context of human society, these actions in specific instances are not "absolutely" wrong. To some people they are wrong, to some people they are not wrong. In the hypothetical example used in the debate, the terrorists certainly would not view the kidnap, rape and murder of the child as wrong. As I said before, in the example of Jesus' kidnap, torture and murder, Knight thinks that these actions were morally right-and were, in fact, the very best things that could have happened. So how, exactly, can kidnap, torture and murder be called "absolutely" wrong by Knight? He can't call such things "absolutely" wrong.

Furthermore, Knight does not specifically define the context in which "absolute morality" exists." Any action that anyone does could be justified by someone somewhere, so within the context of humanity, there are no "absolutes." If there is some other context in which actions are absolutely wrong, Knight has to define what this context is. He alluded to this at the beginning of the debate, in his comments about a morality that is somehow above and beyond humanity, but has has not pursued this point. He has not demonstrated that there is a higher context for morality than human society. Therefore Knight has not made a case for his side of the debate. Unless he does, he loses the debate.

Period.

Binky Binkus

 

[novice]

Binkus says...

In the Bible, the Christian god's chosen people kidnap, rape and murder under his command. Is that "absolutely" wrong or "absolutely" right? According to who? It is all so confusing...

LOL!!! Hey Mr. Zakath errrrrrr I mean Binkus, even if your above statement were true (which it isn't) are you asserting that there IS such a thing as absolute morality???

I didn't think so.

Jesus supposedly was kidnapped, tortured and killed for the greater good of humanity. So I guess kidnapping, torturing and killing is not absolutely wrong but can be moral goodness in the highest form--under certain circumstances.

Huh???

Are you asserting that the murder of Jesus was NOT absolutely wrong?

Just because something good may arise from something wrong that doesn't change the fact that the original act was wrong.

Think of it his way....

Soon, we will have a wonderful memorial for those lost in the Sept. 11th attack. Furthermore, our country is experiencing a level of patriotism higher than we have had in decades. It would appear that there are indeed "good" things happening as a result of the attacks on Sept. 11th according to your logic it would then follow that the attacks themselves must not have been morally wrong since good has come from them. That my friend is the logic of a fool.

You continue...

Knight certainly believes that this example of kidnap, torture and murder/killing was moral goodness in its highest form. Therefore Knight is not "absolutely" against kidnapping, torturing and killing others. Under the right circumstances he thinks such actions are morally right, and is therefore a moral relativist.

Good job! Build a false argument and then tear it down your really convincing me!

Binkus, when you deny what is true (especially when you know its true) you become a fool. And that is what you are - a fool!

 

[Pilgrimagain]

how can you say that it is not true? The Israelites were commanded to do those things. Are yous aying they never kidnapped or murdered anyone?

 

[novice]

Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
how can you say that it is not true? The Israelites were commanded to do those things. Are yous aying they never kidnapped or murdered anyone?

You are accusing God of MURDER!!!!!!

Aren't you a priest or an assistant pastor?

How could you have just typed what you typed????

You should be ashamed. I beg of you to repent of your evil accusation against God!

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.- James 1:13-14

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Instead of all the hot hair and ad hominums why not answer the question, did the Israelites murder or not? What about getting the men to circumsize themselves then sneaking in while they were writhing in pain and putting them down?

 

[cirisme]

I agree with novice. Very bad, pa :down: :down: :down:

 

[marcelpo]

>>Which is more correct, Zakath's opinion, or society's? Furthermore, should law be based on Zakath's expiriences or the societies? Also, what if Zakath disagrees with the society? What relatisim comes down to is the one with the bigger stick. <<

And that is EXACTLY what history teaches us. "History is written by those who have hanged heroes." Sound familiar?

"Naked force has solved more conflicts than any other factor." RA Heinlein, Starship Troopers.

History is littered with examples where the "rightness" or "wrongness" was determined by the biggest stick. Now, please try to reconcile those exmaples with the existence of an absolute standard of morality.

 

[Big Finn]

And that is EXACTLY what history teaches us. "History is written by those who have hanged heroes." Sound familiar?

"Naked force has solved more conflicts than any other factor." RA Heinlein, Starship Troopers.

History is littered with examples where the "rightness" or "wrongness" was determined by the biggest stick. Now, please try to reconcile those exmaples with the existence of an absolute standard of morality.

Well, this might be true IF all it took for something to be true was for someone to allege that it is. All it takes to make something immoral or moral according to this thinking is just for someone to portray it as moral. Can you really believe this?

According to this, if the Nazi's had won WWII then, because they would have portrayed themselves as moral what they did would have become moral. What kind of circular logic is this--I am right and moral because I say I am right and moral?

All I can do is shake my head at this kind of reasoning.

 

[Lion]

Whose side are you on any way?

Whose side are you on any way?

Pilgrimagain-I have to agree with Novices last post to Binkus, only now have to apply it to you as well;

… you are - a fool!

How dare you accuse God of murder.

And perhaps, if you are going to teach Biblical materia,l you should first read the Book so you know what you are talking about. An example of your ignorance (or just plain lying; You said,

”The Israelites were commanded to do those things. Are you saying they never kidnapped or murdered anyone?…

Instead of all the hot hair and ad hominums why not answer the question, did the Israelites murder or not? What about getting the men to circumsize themselves then sneaking in while they were writhing in pain and putting them down?

Did God command this?

NO!

And not only did God not command this but even Jacob condemned them for their evil actions. First right after the action itself;

Gen 34: 30 Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have troubled me by making me obnoxious among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites; and since I am few in number, they will gather themselves together against me and kill me. I shall be destroyed, my household and I.”

And even again as he was splitting up the inheritance among his children.

Gen 49: 5-7 “Simeon and Levi are brothers; Instruments of cruelty are in their dwelling place. Let not my soul enter their council; Let not my honor be united to their assembly; For in their anger they slew a man, And in their self-will they hamstrung an ox. Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce; And their wrath, for it is cruel! I will divide them in Jacob And scatter them in Israel.

The Bible tells what happened, in all its horrible truth. The Israelites did wrong. They committed murder and in a horrible way. But God did not order this nor approve. People sin, even God’s chosen people. In fact most of God’s chosen people rebelled against Him and went to hell. The Bible does not try to hide these facts but rather tells it like it is.

And just for the record, are saying that God does command rape and murder in the Bible?

Why is it that you so often side with and attempt to defend admitted haters of God?

Perhaps you are more like Simeon and Levi than a true lover of God.

 

[Eireann]

According to the bible, God commanded complete genocide. That is not only murder, it is murder in the extreme. It is murder on Hitler proportions. Do you all deny that this happened? Someone posted the exact verses on another thread. Or how about when he ordered bears to kill a bunch of kids because they laughed at his prophet's bald head? If no one else will, then I'll gladly accuse God of murder, not to mention extreme pettiness, if the bible is to be believed.

Or how about this: according to Knight's response to Zak's hypothetical, the guilt for the wrongful rape and murder of the girl is passed onto the terrorist for having planned it, even though the terrorist didn't actually do the killing or raping. This is a precedent we've seen in law, too; anyone remember a guy named Charles Manson? Therefore, not only has the precedent for the guilt of murder being placed upon the planner been set in courtrooms, but it has also been agreed upon by the champion of absolute morality -- Knight. That said, God planned the murder of Jesus. It was alluded to well before the fact. If the bible is to be believed. Therefore God, by default, by the precedents set in court and agreed upon by Knight, is a murderer. Of his own son, which is even worse than regular murder.

Of course, this leaves you absolutists in a Catch-22. On the one hand, you can say that the good outcome of Christ's murder overrides the wrongfulness of the act, thus supporting the utilitarian argument that LordBinkus, an apparent relativist, put forth. Or you can say that the wrong was wrong regardless of the outcome, and you have God as a murderer.

 

[Eireann]

That isn't a tough question for me to answer! I simply answer NO! It is NOT absolutely right to worship Vishnu or Odin. There is only one true God and that is the Lord Jesus Christ therefore the answer to your question was no dilemma at all!

But herein you create for yourself another dilemma. Since Odin and Vishnu represent man's interpretation of divinity, then can you conclusively show that Vishnu of the Hindus and Odin of the Norse are different gods from Jehovah of the Christians? If they're absolutely not the same deity, then you're fine. But if they are just different personifications of the same God you worship, then you just said it is not absolutely right to worship God.

Actually it does. Words have meanings and "maybe" means "maybe no", "maybe yes", therefore you have conceded that unless there were extenuating circumstances in your opinion Ted was absolutely wrong. Game over, I win!

That very phrase "unless there were extenuating circumstances" negates the absoluteness of the wrong. The very nature of the relativist argument is that the so-called absoluteness of an action is dependent upon all possible variables. If the mere theoretical possibility of extenuating circumstances will make what was otherwise absolutely wrong something other than absolutely wrong, then it is not absolutely wrong in any circumstance. Part of the nature of absolutes is that they are absolute, regardless of extenuating circumstances. If you talk about something that is absolutely wrong unless there are extenuating circumstances (your words, I remind you) then you are not talking about something that can possibly ever be absolutely wrong, you would be talking about an "absolute" that is relative to the circumstances (in which case "absolute" would be a misnomer), which is the relativist's viewpoint.

 

[Freak]

Pilgrim a wolf in sheeps clothing?

Pilgrim a wolf in sheeps clothing?

Pilgrim,

Your true colors are coming out...

You claim to be a man of the cloth and the garbadge you spill out is revolting...I think I'll send a email off to your senior pastor and copy some of the trash you promote here...Pilgrim, do you really know the Lord Jesus Christ? Have you truly experienced a spiritual re-birth?

 

[me again]

I feel like a magnet being drawn to this thread.